Babies Are Getting Brain Bleeds—Are Vaccine Fears to Blame?
Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Some parents are refusing vitamin K injections for their newborns. The consequences can be devastating.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/vitamin-k-injection-infants-safety
"In May, the Tennessean reported on a truly shocking medical problem. Seven infants, aged between seven and 20 weeks old, had arrived at Vanderbilt University's Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital over the past eight months with a condition called "vitamin K deficiency bleeding," or VKDB. This rare disorder occurs because human infants do not have enough vitamin K, a blood coagulant, in their systems. Infants who develop VKDB can bleed in various parts of their bodies, including bleeding into the brain. This can cause brain damage or even death.
There is a simple protection against VKDB that has been in regular medical use since 1961, when it was recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics: Infants receive an injection of vitamin K into the leg muscle right after birth. Infants do not get enough of this vitamin from their mother's body or her milk, so this injection (which is not a vaccine, but simply a vitamin being delivered via a shot) is essential, explains pediatrician Clay Jones on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast (stream below). It's also quite safe.
So then why are some parents refusing to get it, leaving their infants vulnerable to a potentially devastating condition? It's difficult to understand the phenomenon outside the context of a growing fear, in general, about vaccines in the US. "There's a lot of overlap with that anti-vaccine mentality," says Jones. Indeed, reporting on the Vanderbilt VKDB cases, the Tennessean explained that "Vanderbilt doctors believe incidences are on the rise because of the anti-vaccine movement."
VKDB comes in two versions, an "early" form (occurring in the first week of life) and the much more dangerous "late" form, which tends to strike infants between two and 12 weeks old who have not received Vitamin K, and who are "exclusively breastfed" by their mothers. The problem, writes Jones, is that "levels of vitamin K in breast milk are low, much lower than in infant formula."
..."
= new reply since forum marked as read
of DOCTORS...these days, too many people flock to the internet and decide to listen to whomever they choose...often those people are not all that intelligent..
When I go online on my work computer I remember what ads look like. Don't see any on my own system. 
If you Google vitamin k injections in newborns the very first result is a page at mercola.com with the title The High Risks of Vitamin K Shot for Your Newborn Baby. Thank you Google.
That it doesn't matter physically, unless the mother is older. If the mom is older, the kids should be 2 years apart or longer.
Mentally is an entirely different issue, and will vary from kid to kid. An "easy" first kid isn't going to be driving the parents crazy, and thus having a second kid close in age works just fine. And that mental situation can have an effect on the kid's behavior, since we are teaching children how to behave.
Statistics don't back up what your opinion. We tend to find patterns in our lives, even when the patterns aren't really there. That's why science uses statistics instead of "It seems like there are problems".
And that isn't science. "lose the baby weight" is woo. If you look at the stats, we should actually be trying to be about 10-20 lbs "overweight" - people in that group live longest.
That's because we evolved in a far more harsh environment. So we evolved for women to be able to handle a lot during their pregnancies. Not perfect - dying in childbirth was somewhat common until the modern era. But pregnancy just works the vast majority of the time. If it was a fragile process, we wouldn't be here. Our species would have died out.
And we know those basic requirements due to..........? Hey, we know those thanks to science!
Those new discoveries are woo when there's no independent studies to back them up.
And no, those evil corporations are not preventing study of the amazing new discovery. You don't need a corporation's permission to study your amazing new discovery. A company refusing to sell you their drug doesn't mean you can't compare your own study to a placebo. But it's a fantastic line to push when you want to sell woo.
The myth is that cave people only lived to their 20s. That was caused by the high infant mortality. Life expectancy from adulthood does not show nearly as dramatic an increase, but it still shows an increase.
Here's life expectancy information from the 1850s to today for the United States.
An example of the myth is newborn's life expectancy in 1850 was 38, while today it's 76. That massive 38 year difference is mostly do to childhood mortality. Which is why a better measurement is life expectancy from adulthood.
In 1850, a 20-year-old white male lived to about 60. Today, a 20-year-old white male lives to about 77. 17 years is not a myth.
Yes, cancer treatments, open heart surgery and transplants are woo.
And like I said, based on the posts in here that is what you've done. In fact, you keep justifying it rather than make any sort of statement saying that his other work could still be valid.
But if you are not doing that then you have a funny way of agreeing with someone.
does the baby get a darwin award since they would probably be idiots throughout you life and bad things would happen anyway? Or do the parents get honorary awards?
Take care.
not only is she producing K, but also whatever it is that causes 12 year olds to decide that eating anything green, with the exception of mint chocolate chip ice cream, is going to maim or kill them. 
